The New Educational Utopia of 21st Century Learning

Today's EdWeek newsletter led me to an article entitled "Backers of '21st-Century Skills' Take Flak." The article identifies 21st century skills as "a push for schools to teach ­­­critical-thinking, analytical, and technology skills, in addition to the “soft skills” of creativity, collaboration, and communication that some experts argue will be in high demand as the world increasingly shifts to a global, entrepreneurial, and service-based workplace." The leading group making this push is the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Another group that also promotes 21st century skills and learning is the Metiri Group with the enGuage 21st Century Skills. There are similarities between what each presents. I have long preferred the enGuage presentation of the skills, but the Partnership group have begun to attract the greater attention. (I believe the Partnership for 21st Century Skills signed an agreement to work with ASCD--the Association for Supervison and Curriculum Development in March of '08--giving that group a real boost in credibility, whether deserved or not.)

What struck me most about the EdWeek article was the opposition to 21st century skills. Could it be that project-based learning, collaboration, and other such "soft skills" are not as essential as we are being led to believe? The article made reference to Diane Ravitch. I had never heard of her but she was speaking out, so I googled her and found her associated with a group called Common Core. She is more importantly an educational historian at New York University. On the Common Core site, Dr. Ravitch has posted a blog that sheds considerable light on the opposition to the touting of 21st century skills as the new way to utopia. She begins with:

In the land of American pedagogy, innovation is frequently confused with progress, and whatever is thought to be new is always embraced more readily than what is known to be true. Thus, pedagogues, policymakers, thought leaders, facilitators, and elected officials are rushing to get aboard the 21st century skills express train, lest they appear to be old-fashioned or traditional, these terms being the worst sort of opprobrium that can be hurled at any educator.

From there, Dr. Ravitch outlines decades of school reform methods that parallel the 21st century skills movement with the conviction that such efforts ultimatel seek to devalue solid academic learning.

So maybe I agree with Dr. Ravitch; maybe I disagree. Either way, what she has to say is important and worth reading, and I hope that if you have taken the time to read my drivel that you will take the time to read her blog. Then, please, come back and post a response.

I'm anxious to hear what you have to say.

Critical Thinking and the Intentional Non-Learner

In the fall of 2008 I attended the CELL conference in Indianapolis and was privileged to hear Katy Haycock, of the Education Trust, (The link will take you where you can hear Haycock's keynote.) speak about student achievement. Among many gems that I tried to capture with my cell phone keypad, I recorded Haycock as saying that the United States is the only country that believes kids can catch up by slowing down. She was speaking about the importance of providing a rigorous curricula for every student. I've been thinking about what that means.

Many schools are guilty of slowing down the learning of the struggling learners in a well-meaning effort to improve learning. There is sound reasoning in doing this, to some extent. Students learn at different rates, some faster and others slower. It is reasonable to allow more time for those who need more time, if it results in learning. But I don't believe that such is the problem with the "remedial" learning that is provided for the struggling students. Often, the struggling student is assigned to an education of low-level thinking. Recognizing that the student struggles with knowledge, comprehension, and application, we educators determine that the student needs more work with the same. When the student shows proficiency in the low-level thinking, we'll give him a shot at some higher-order thinking.

Every student needs the opportunity to engage in higher-order thinking--in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Through critical thinking a student is able to experience greater engagement in the learning experience and perhaps the joy of learning. Through engaging in higher-order thinking the student sees a reason to know, comprehend, and apply the other learning--lower-order thinking--that to this point has been meaningless.

Before I became an administrator I taught English to resistant freshmen and sophomores. I engaged these students in Socratic Seminars. When I wrote quizzes over something they were to have read, I wrote six questions: one from each of the six levels of the taxonomy of knowledge attributed to Bloom. I found that my students did well on the higher-order thinking questions but struggled on the lower-order thinking questions. However, as the semester progressed, students began to answer all questions better. Now, this only leads to a hypothesis and I do not suggest this to be anything more. But it does lead me to suggest that students will benefit from a more rigorous curriculum focused on challenging students to engage in higher-order thinking.

If we believe our students are not capable of higher-order thinking, we are right. And if we believe our students are capable of higher-order thinking, we will find this also to be true.

Why not give a kid a chance?